Talk:Tudor architecture

Opening heading
This should not redirect but should be the discussion page for the article. Dabbler 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move to Tudor architecture
I am unhappy about this page being termed "style" rather than Tudor architecture. Style implies a "revival" rather than the real thing. I am planning to write a page about the 19th century Tudor Revival which could quite justly have the name Tudor Style i.e. in the style of the Tudors. Tudorbethan exists as a Tudor revival but that style pertains strictly to the half timbered houses, "Olde England" and Arts and Crafts movement etc. Jacobethan also exists but this refers to buildings specifically in the style of the English Renaissance. The new page will refer to hundreds of 19th century buildings like Chartwell, which do not fit either the Tudorbethan or Jacobethan categories. I won't make a page move for a week to give previous editors here a chance to object/comment. Giano | talk 17:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree --Amandajm 07:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. I think it might have been "Tudor architecture" once, and for some reason or other changed to Tudor style architecture. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also agree. I think one way would be to have the current Tudor architecture page to Tudor architecture (disambiguation) and Tudor style architecture moved to Tudor architecture. Not sure if that is an approved method of moving or not... but happy to have a go if there are no objections.Finereach (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree too and am going to be bold. Stronach (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revisions
I am not an architect. When I read this article I got the impression that since I am not a member of this group, I must suffer through a constant reminder of this fact; the reminder consisting of cliquish words and phrases, ivory tower innuendo, and an architecture-speak which does little to enlighten those not in the loop. The grammar and usage needs to be tightened, more information needs to be actually presented, and you need to quit trying to portray the idea that your perticular discipline puts you in a superior class of individuals.

For example, the second sentence of the first paragraph seems to be trying to say the Tudor style fell between two other periods (which is something we could assume, I think), and that the English still like it. It's hard to tell given the fluffy words used. The second paragraph suggests Tudor presents itself only in castles and colleges, and gives no insight into the houses found in the Eastern United States which claim to be of that style. This article is mostly useless and needs to be written by someone who has a knowledge to convey, and the ability to convey it. 67.172.153.122 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you describe the gist of what is being explained in perfectly straightforward English, bearing in mind that a discussion of an architectural/historical subject must use architectural and/or historical terms, otherwise it would be patronising to its readers, to say the least. Fluffy?


 * As for the houses found in the Eastern United States, they would hardly have been built during the Tudor period, I think you should be looking under Tudor revival architecture or Jacobethan for that. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Dieter Simon (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Tudor style architecture → — As discussed above. 'Tudor style architecture' suggests a revival, rather than the original incanation of the architectural period known as Tudor. Stronach (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tudor vs Elizabethan
Would it be possible to merge the Elizabethan architecture and Tudor architecture as the boundaries seemed to be a little fluid, For example as a few of the example buildings seem to be of the Elizabethan period. The demarcation also seems to suggest a significant architecture style shift around 1533 which I am not sure occurred Rupertjames —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Boundaries are always fluid for architecture. It takes a while for an established style to fall out of favour before something new & exciting takes its place. The Elizabethan period didn't spring into being on her birth, but upon her accession to the throne 25 yrs later. After the Wars of the Roses' dust had settled down, there was a significant shift toward modernising with fortified manors/palaces rather than defensive castles. Brick was increasingly used over stone, & larger windows became the rule rather than the exception (Hardwick Hall, more glass than wall, shows how much building in England had changed by midway thru Elizabeth's reign), & Tudor architecture continued to evolve over the dynasty's 118 yrs. ScarletRibbons (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Kings College Chapel, Henry VIIs Contributions
The arch over the front entrance isn't Tudor, but Gothic. All you have to do is compare it with the archways at Sutton Place & Oxburgh. Those have the slight curve in the upper section that makes the wider Tudor look for a doorway or arch, whilst the Oxford one just goes straight to a point. That chapel was endowed before Henry Tudor was a twinkle in his daddy's eye. It's Perpendicular Gothic at best, & shouldn't be the lead photo in an article on Tudor architecture.

Also, the Tudor period did not begin with Henry VIII! (It's as bad as Googling the poor sod & having it inquire *Did you mean to search for Henry VIII?*). Henry VIIs sole contribution to English architecture wasn't merely the Lady Chapel at Westminster Abbey, which was Gothic, at any rate, in keeping with the existing building. He borrowed heavily from Burgundian architecture....there weren't a whole lot of brick buildings before his palace of Richmond, as brick had to be imported from the Low Countries for the most part, was cost-prohibitive for all but the wealthiest Englishmen, & England didn't step up its production of brick until his grandchildren's reigns....which included building accents like quoins, decor that was merely decor & not disguising something structural, mullioned windows, & other things that are now recognised as Tudor without acknowledging from whom they came. ScarletRibbons (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Four-centred arch v. Tudor arch
The author refers to "The four-centered arch, now known as the Tudor arch". They are not the same thing. A Tudor arch has tight curvature in the corners but straight edges to the apex of the arch, as distinct from the curves of longer radius that give rise to the term 'four-centred'. (A mathematician might describe the straight parts as being of infinite radius, and that a Tudor arch is therefore a special case of a four-centred arch, but this is not a mathematical article!) Also, as this is about English architecture, it is not appropriate to use American spelling. So the four-centred arch should be so spelt (though a quick scan of the rest of the article shows English spellings have been generally used in the article). I notice that the separate article 'Four-centred arch' also equates these distinct types of arch and is also confusing in other respects. PCWT (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Spelling and factual issues
The section on Henry VII either contains original research or speculation especially around the Renaissance and this doesn't agree with the page on the English Renaissance or any other sources I have seen. There are no citations for several claims that are not held by the historical or archaeological consensus on the time period, and saying "the evidence is from [list of items]" instead of actually citing a reputable academic source is not in the Wikipedia style, or academia, it is in the style of a secondary school essay. First and foremost this is an encyclopaedia which should only reference the existing body of work on the topic. There are paragraphs of statements here none of which have any citations. If whoever is responsible for the shambolic editing on this page wants to write articles, they should go and publish them (you would need to cite sources in your originally-researched published articles for academic journals, too, so get in the habit).

Secondly the spelling in this section is ridiculous. The plural of "cannon" is "cannon" not "cannons" and "crenelations" is possibly the most preposterous Americanism I have ever come across for a word the US doesn't even need to re-spell because the country didn't exist when the majority of European castle building and defensive fortification work was going on. It's more ridiculous than "liter" and "meter" but since this is an article on England, it should be written in British English.

I have to wonder was this edited by a high schooler at some point? I have not got the time to sort this out beyond the minor corrections I have made today to spelling, but I am hoping someone with deeper subject knowledge and an understanding of the Wikipedia project can look into this in more depth.

Edit notes /* The reign of Henry VII */ Corrected typos, removed the most outlandish claims, changed weasel words for clear sentence structure and removed an irrelevant passage that has nothing to do with Tudor architecture.

The passage I removed was this badly-written tripe that is irrelevant to this specific article, I will point out the burden of proving all the claims with real, relevant citations (and cleaning up the language issues and excessive dramatic use of hyperboles; as one example, the word "hellbent" is two words, neither of which have any place in an encyclopedia article on a historical topic) lies with the editor who restores it: Henry Tudor was hellbent on repairing the damage done by so many years of war, and that meant increasing financial security. It also meant recentralising power in London with the crown alone and away from interrelated nobles who had been squabbling over scraps of power since the reign of Richard II, evidenced by the crown beginning to be fought over by different branches of the descendants of Edward III at that time. This move was particularly unpopular and ensured that the king, above all others, was the most powerful and wealthy noble in England rather than well landed lords, and thus the example to follow. Henry VII was not above giving out bills of attainder to disobedient or faithless nobles who refused to bend the knee to him as king, which incidentally also often meant their lands or titles would revert to the crown. During the reign of Henry VII, he made some savvy business investments in the alum trade and made vast improvements to the waterborne infrastructure of the country: the site of his dry dock in Portsmouth still is used today, and equally because of Henry's investments in alum (a mordant used for dying wool, a major export of England at the time) records also show a striking increase in the volume of ships and thus trade coming in and out of England. Portsmouth was an early pet project of Henry VII, one he paid approximately £193 for the entire construction, a sum that for its time was enormous.

194.125.32.26 (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. And "cannons" is the plural of "cannon" whether you like it or not, since we are talking about multiple tube shape objects made of metal that fire cannonballs. The words "kiss my __ " come to mind if you don't like Americanisms. You do not have the right to a monopoly on world history. And BTW, Wikipedia's policy is that whoever *started* the article, well, that is the spelling that gets used. (I would also point out that throwing a fit like a spoiled toddler over the rules does not become you.)

First off, without context, most of the information would make zero sense. The fact of the matter is that there are turning points in history and Bosworth was a HUGE one; it was a $@#$@#$@#$!!! earthquake if we want to talk history. The Plantagenet dynasty went teats up. The last kings of England educated in the art of chivalry went bye bye and the ideal of the warrior king got flushed down the proverbial crapper. A king, (or at least a man who would become one) who had spent much time abroad in France and Brittany sat his royal tuchus on the throne and arguably he had been exposed to new ideas, new thinking, since the Renaissance was underway in places like France and the Netherlands, unevenly, but it so it was. Henry VII was raised, like most boys of his time, to learn how to fight from the time he was only six years old. The records are very clear that his children did not receive that kind of education and dammit, the man received Erasmus at his court. Henry VII is the transitional figure between the old and the new, and it is not my damn fault you are trained to recite only what you are told like a parrot for the GCSE. Equally not my fault: you are too lazy to get up off your butt to go and find the primary sources, namely things like account books, the old records, etc. Worst of all, you are physically closer than I am.

SPIRES-Social, Political, Intellectual, Religious, Economic, Scientific. All of these are the wheels society turns around. And whatever goes on in society will get reflected in its artwork and its architecture, one way or another. That is 2 years of study talking. It was part of my degree.

Second, it actually is true that Henry VII recentralized power in London: one of the causes of the Wars of the Roses was the fact that the nobility, a shocking amount of them somehow interrelated, were able to raise private armies and were able to throw a tantrum every time they did not get their way. That throne flipped over more times than a pancake at a greasy spoon. An idiot whose head has been dashed against a wall repeatedly until bloody would be able to tell you that the succession was Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, then the rise of the House of Tudor!! Without the end of the Wars of the Roses, well, no Hardwick Hall, no Hampton Court Palace, and key of all, Shene Palace does not burn down so that RICHMOND PALACE has to be BUILT. This is why it is included.

Further, not everything that was built from about 1485-1603 was a dwelling. Military installations, industrial sites, even places of commerce: all of these would have unique architecture that is specific to the period. Hence the inclusion of the port at Portsmouth. I didn't have time to likewise insert information on the ridiculous forts that Henry VIII built on the coasts. I was hoping someone else would. I do not like to hog pages.

Hellbent is one word in AE. Again, too bad if you don't like it. You are right, this is a Wikipedia page. And such pages are meant to be read by the average Joe. Shadowkittie5460 (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:ENGVAR this article should use British English, as a) the first version to show an engvar difference, back in 2005 uses BE, and b) there are obviously "strong national ties" with England for this subject. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Very well, I shall abide because the original is BrE, but nothing more than this. My points stand: throwing a fit and claiming how I naturally write and spell is somehow unfit and inferior is puerile, snobbish, and I WILL go to the administrator over it next time. Shadowkittie5460 (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that! Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)